On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Daniel Fischer <daniel.is.fisc...@web.de> wrote: > Hah, seems I'm the first to point out a flaw in it: > > Bottom of page 13: > "Also, note that although _ >> m = m would be a type-correct implementation > of (>>), it" > The remainder of the sentence is missing.
Sorry, I've already reported this one, it's waiting for moderation on the blog post ;). -- Felipe. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
